Agenda of Albert-Eden Local Board

Albert-Eden Local Board

06 May 2015

Auckland Council Property Limited Local Board Six-Monthly Update 1 July to 31 December 2014

File No.: CP2015/06299

Purpose

1. To give the Albert - Eden Local Board an overview of Auckland Council Property Limited’s (ACPL) activities for the six months 1 July to 31 December 2014.

Executive Summary

2. ACPL’s vision centres on “creating value from property assets” by providing commercial expertise and value for money to Auckland Council in managing its property portfolio, and acquisition and disposal activities. The concept of “value” includes but is not limited to financial value. In addition to financial value, a growing aspect of ACPL’s work has been to use surplus council property to help achieve the council’s housing supply and urban regeneration objectives. We will also identify opportunities to add value by improving the use of council service property such as redevelopment of under-utilised sites.

3. This report sets out a summary of ACPL activities for the past six months that contribute to our seven key outcomes as outlined in our Statement of Intent (SOI) 2014 to 2017 and noted below. Activity detail is broken down by business unit or work-stream, with a focus on local board specific activities where applicable.

4. ACPL’s seven key outcomes:

· Properties managed for the council and Auckland Transport (AT) are maintained to be fit for purpose and achieve optimum net returns.

· Redevelopment/regeneration projects involving other sector partners are efficiently planned and managed to help achieve a quality compact Auckland.

· ACPL contributes exemplar housing developments to increase the supply of housing in Auckland, particularly in the more affordable spectrum of the market, working with partners.

· Council business interests are managed to protect long term value and achieve budgeted net income.

· Property acquisitions are undertaken in a commercially robust manner and in accordance with the council and AT agreed requirements and relevant legislation.

· Properties are disposed of for the council in a commercially robust manner once declared surplus.

· The council is provided with a commercial perspective on planning and development initiatives to support effective implementation of those initiatives.

5. Local board specific supporting detail is included in Attachments A, B, and C.

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) receives the Auckland Council Property Limited Local Board Six-Monthly update 1 July to 31 December 2014.

Comments

Workshops and Meetings

6. A schedule of Albert - Eden Local Board workshops and meetings attended by ACPL representatives from July to December is included as Attachment A. The list includes property specific meetings and workshops relating to general property management and the ongoing portfolio Rationalisation Process.

Property Portfolio Management

7. ACPL manages property owned by the council and AT that are not currently required for service or infrastructure purposes. These are properties that are not immediately required for service delivery or infrastructure development but are being held for use in a planned future project such as road construction/widening or the expansion of parks.

8. The property portfolio continued to grow during the last six months and now totals 1306 properties, an increase of 121 since our January-June 2014 update. The current property portfolio includes industrial sites and buildings, retail tenancies, cafés, restaurants, offices and a substantial portfolio of residential properties.

9. ACPL’s specialist property knowledge and understanding enables us to optimise revenue streams and identify future opportunities. ACPL’s return on the property portfolio for the six months ending 31 December 2014 provides the shareholder a net surplus of $2.9m ahead of budget, with an actual surplus of $11.8m against budget of $23m. The average monthly vacancy rate for the period is 1.68% which is under the SOI targets of 5%.

10. A Properties Managed schedule is included as Attachment B of this report. The schedule details:

· Current ACPL-managed commercial and residential property within the Albert - Eden Local Board

· Each property’s classification or reason for retention

· The nature of the property, such as a café within a library, or a residential property with a tenancy in place

· The budget under which operating expenditure and lease revenue for the property is reported for example regional or local board.

11. A report indicating portfolio movement in the local board area is attached as Attachment C. The report details all new acquisitions including the reason for acquisition, any transfers and the reason for transfer, and any disposals.

Portfolio Review and Rationalisation

Overview

12. ACPL is required to undertake ongoing rationalisation of the council’s non-service assets. This includes identifying properties from within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale and development if appropriate. ACPL has a particular focus on achieving housing outcomes. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to the Auckland Plan focus of accommodating the significant growth projected for the region over the coming decades, by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

Performance

13. July 2014 to June 2015 Target

UNIT	TARGET	ACHIEVED	COMMENTS
Portfolio Review	$30m disposal recommendations	$36.4m	These recommendations include $33.2m of sites that are identified for development projects.

14. In setting future disposal targets ACPL is working closely with the council and AT to identify potentially surplus properties.

15. 2014/2015 Targets

UNIT	TARGET	COMMENTS
Portfolio Review	$30m gross value recommended for sale	These targets include disposal recommendations and sales for sites that are identified for place-shaping and housing development projects.
Development & Disposals	$30 net value of unconditional sales

Process

16. Once identified as a potential sale candidate a property is taken through a multi-stage Rationalisation Process. The agreed process includes engagement with: the council, CCOs, local board and mana whenua. This is followed by ACPL Board approval, engagement with local ward and the Independent Māori Statutory Board and finally a governing body decision.

Under review

17. Properties currently under review for future use opportunities via the Rationalisation Process in the Albert – Eden area are listed below. The list includes any properties that may have recently been approved for sale or development and sale by the governing body. Further details are included in Attachment B.

PROPERTY

DETAILS

27 Normanby Road - Mount Eden

Recommended for sale in March 13. Decision to sell deferred pending further work by Solid Waste Business Unit into an alternative site for a refuse transfer station.

2 Wiremu Street (Childcare) - Balmoral

Commercial Childcare centre who want to remain on as a commercial site and not run as a community group. CPP investigated using this site for office and storage space or early childhood learning services but found that it did not require site. Progressed to local board engagement. Albert-Eden Local Board expressed interest in retaining site and are currently investigating options.

Redevelopment/Regeneration and Housing Supply Initiatives

Overview

18. ACPL is contributing commercial input into approximately 54 region wide council-driven regeneration and housing supply initiatives. Involvement extends from provision of initial feasibility advice through to implementation, with projects ranging in size from $415k to in excess of $100million. ACPL works closely with the local boards on ACPL-led developments to ensure we give effect to the local boards’ place-shaping role.

19. ACPL is working with the wider council group to formulate a process or approach for identifying and realising optimisation opportunities that exist for service assets. This will provide opportunities to work with local boards on development opportunities that deliver wider strategic benefit consistent with the Auckland plan such as intensification, town centre regeneration and affordable housing. It will also improve service outcomes through obtaining more effective use of property assets.

20. ACPL is also actively contributing to the Housing Strategy Action Plan, which is a council initiative focusing on non-regulatory efforts to encourage and increase affordable residential development. We have an SOI target to undertake five housing development projects over three years that will improve housing affordability and the supply of affordable housing encompassing CHO involvement. We are currently actively working on 13 such projects.

Local Activities

21. A high level update on place-shaping and housing initiative and proposal activities in the Albert-Eden area is outlined in points below.

22. Dominion Road/Valley Road, Mt Eden – site identified for mixed-use development retail/apartment development. Feasibility and a developed concept design are targeted for completion towards mid-2015.

Acquisitions

Overview

23. ACPL continues to support council and AT programmes and projects by negotiating required property acquisitions. All such acquisitions are funded through approved council or AT budgets. We also provide advice to assist with budgets, business cases and strategy to support an acquisition.

24. From the commencement of the 2015 financial year, 1 July 2014 to 31 January 2015, 73 property purchases were completed for the council and AT to the value of $56m. All of the property acquisitions met independent valuation thresholds agreed with AT, the council and Public Works Act 1981 requirements.

Council Acquisitions

25. Over the past six months 15 properties were acquired to meet council legal, open space and storm water requirements and to contribute to City Transformation projects. These included the following acquisitions in or neighbouring the Albert - Eden Local Board area.

PROPERTY	STAKEHOLDER	PURPOSE	LOCAL BOARD
713-743 Rosebank Road, Avondale	Community Policy & Planning	Open Space	Whau
3A Larchwood Avenue, Westmere	Stormwater	Stormwater	Waitematā

Auckland Transport Acquisitions

26. 58 properties were also acquired over the past six months on behalf of AT. The focus was on acquisitions to support major transport projects including AMETI (17 acquisitions) City Rail Link Property Acquisition (23 acquisitions) and Northern Strategic Growth Area (4 acquisitions). Full details of relevant AT projects and associated acquisitions will come to the local board directly from AT.

Business Interests

27. ACPL also optimises the commercial return from assets it manages on council’s behalf. This comprises two forestry enterprises, two landfills and four quarries. There are currently no business interests in the Albert-Eden Local Board area.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

28. This report is for the Albert-Eden Local Board’s information.

Māori impact statement

29. Whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua. The importance of effective communication and engagement with Māori on the subject of land is understood. ACPL has accordingly developed robust engagement with the 19 mana whenua groups for our core business activities.

30. Key engagement activities include: identifying cultural significance concerns regarding disposal properties, flagging commercial interests, development partnering discussions and issues relating to property management such as protection of wāhi tapu or joint management arising from the resolution of Treaty Settlements. ACPL also engages with relevant mana whenua in respect of development outcomes for ACPL lead projects where appropriate. ACPL will advise the Albert-Eden Local Board as appropriate of any discussions that arise in the local board’s area.

31. Active negotiations with iwi were held in the Albert-Eden local board area for a mixed use, retail and apartment development. However in this instance, the iwi commercial entity decided not to pursue its initial interest in the project.

32. ACPL undertook to be part of council’s Māori Responsiveness Plan (MRP) pilot programme. The project’s key output is an operational document outlining ACPL’s contribution to council’s strategic and operational commitments to Māori. The MRP was finalised and approved by the ACPL Board in December 2014 and the focus will move to identifying priority areas for implementation. A copy of this is available on the ACPL website.

Implementation

33. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Schedule of meetings and workshops	15
b View	Properties Managed by ACPL in the Local Board area	17
c View	Property movement in the Local Board area	25

Signatories

Author

Ebony Duff - Local Board Liaison

Authorisers

David Rankin - Chief Executive Officer

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

06 May 2015

Local Dog Access Review Statement of Proposal

File No.: CP2014/29747

Purpose

1. To seek approval to options to be included in a statement of proposal containing changes to local dog access rules for the Albert-Eden local board area.

Executive Summary

2. The board resolved at its 15 October 2014 business meeting to undertake a review of local dog access rules on beach, foreshore and selected park areas in 2015.

3. As part of the review process, the local board must adopt a statement of proposal of any proposed changes to local dog access rules for public consultation, and consider submissions to the proposal before making a final decision.

4. To assist the local board decision on proposed changes to include in the statement of proposal, staff have identified a range of options that the local board may select from.

5. Staff recommend adopting options that would:

· prohibit dogs at all times southward from the southern access point of the car park at Eric Armishaw Park to protect wildlife

· apply an amended time and season rule from southern access point of the car park at Eric Armishaw Park to the northern headland of Point Chevalier Beach of:

Summer (Labour Weekend until the 31 March)
10am to 7pm	Before 10am and after 7pm
Sand and Water Prohibited	Sand and Water Under control off-leash
Winter (1 April until Friday before Labour Weekend)
10am to 4pm	Before 10am and after 4pm
Sand and Water Under control on-leash	Sand and Water Under control off-leash

· allow dogs under control off-leash north of the northern headland of Point Chevalier Beach

· reclassify dog exercise areas as under control off-leash areas

· replace the general rules for picnic and fitness areas with specific rules

· amend the time and season rule on Coyle Park and Eric Armishaw Park

· replace the under control off-leash area on Gribblehirst Park with under control on-leash

· allow dogs under control off -leash at all times on the western side of Heron Park.

6. Staff will update the statement of proposal to reflect the decisions made by the local board.

Recommendation/s

a) Adopt the following options in relation to the dog access rules reviewed:

Topic	Option
Dog access on current time and season beaches	EITHER Option 1: retain the existing time and season rules for beaches (including foreshore), OR Option 2: apply amended time and season rule between Point Chevalier Beach and Eric Armishaw Beach removing the distinction between sand and water, OR Option 3: apply amended time and season rule from Point Chevalier Beach to Eric Armishaw Beach allowing under control off-leash before 10am and after 7pm during summer (staff recommended option).
Wildlife and habitat protection	EITHER Option 1: retain current general under control on-leash unless otherwise stated rule in significant ecological areas, OR Option 2: replace current rule with prohibition of dogs south of Eric Armishaw Park (staff recommended option).
Coyle Park, Eric Armishaw Park, and Gribblehirst Park	EITHER Option 1: retain current rules, OR Option 2 : amend time and season rules for Coyle Park and Eric Armishaw Park and replace off-leash rule on Gribblehirst Park with an on-leash rule (staff recommended option).
Heron Park	EITHER Option 1: retain current rules, OR Option 2: allow dogs under control on-leash, OR Option 3: implement park concept plan (staff recommended option).
Picnic areas and fitness apparatus areas	EITHER Option 1: retain current general under control on-leash rule, OR Option 2: replace current general rule with a specific rule for high use area of parks (staff recommended option).
Dog exercise areas	EITHER Option 1: retain current use of the term dog exercise area to describe off-leash areas, OR Option 2: reclassify dog exercise areas as under control off-leash areas (staff recommended option).

b) Confirm its intention to amend the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 pursuant to section 10(8) of the Dog Control Act 1996.

c) Subject to any amendments to reflect the local board decision in (a):

i) adopt the statement of proposal titled ‘Statement of Proposal Amendments to Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 – Albert-Eden Local Board Area May 2015’ in Attachment C for public consultation using the special consultative procedure.

ii) Confirm that the proposed amendments contained in the Statement of Proposal:

· are consistent with the policy, principles and criteria for making dog access rules contained in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012

· are not inconsistent with any decision in relation to region-wide dog access rules contained in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012

· are in accordance with relevant legislative requirements in particular the Local Government Act 2002 and Dog Control Act 1996.

iii) Authorise the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws to make any minor edits or amendments to the Statement of Proposal to correct any identified errors or typographical edits.

iv) Authorise the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws, in consultation with the local board chair, to make any amendments to the Statement of Proposal to reflect decisions made by the local board.

v) The board appoints a panel of the whole to receive, hear and deliberate on submissions and other relevant information and recommend changes to the Board.

Background

7. Local boards have the delegated responsibility to review dog access rules for local park, beach and foreshore areas. This does not include the review of regional parks or maunga.

8. The governing body has established a standard annual process to assist local boards with the review of local dog access rules as follows:

· the local board will need to adopt a Statement of Proposal by May of proposed changes to local dog access rules (the topic of this report). It is noted here that where no changes are proposed, the review process for that location ends at this point

· the proposal (together with proposals from other local boards) will be publicly notified for submissions as part of the dog registration process in June

· the local board will hold hearings, deliberations and make decisions on submissions by August

· the governing body will review a report to update the bylaw on dogs in September

· changes to dog access rules commence in October.

9. The board resolved at its 15 October 2014 business meeting (AE/2014/70) to undertake a review of local dog access rules on beach, foreshore and selected park areas in 2015 using this process.

10. To assist with developing this proposal, the Albert-Eden Local Board obtained views from:

· council staff involved in parks, animal management, biodiversity and biosecurity

· selected resident, environmental, and dog groups at meetings and workshops

· maori through hui in March 2015

· residents and visitors through an on-line survey in March 2015

There were 647 respondents to this survey (51 per cent non-dog owners and 49 per cent dog owners) with over 75% of responses relating to Point Chevalier Beach

· beach users through a site survey at Pt Chevalier Beach over two weekend days in late February and mid March 2015

A total of 234 people were interviewed of which 79 per cent were non-dog owners and 21 per cent were dog owners.

11. The decision required of the board is to decide whether or not to propose any changes, and where necessary to adopt a Statement of Proposal for public consultation and to appoint a hearing panel.

Decision-making requirements

12. In making a decision on the statement of proposal, the local board must be satisfied that any proposed changes comply with a range of statutory, policy and delegated authority requirements.

13. The most important statutory requirement is to ensure decisions on dog access provide for public safety and comfort and the needs of dogs and their owners. This means having regard to:

· the need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally; and

· the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults; and

· the importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs; and

· the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

Section 10(4) Dog Control Act 1996

14. The most important practical requirement is to make dog access rules easy to understand ‘on the ground’.

15. Further detail of the decision-making requirements is provided in Attachment B.

Comments

16. Dog access rules are an effective way to provide for public safety and comfort, protection of animals, property and habitat, and the needs of dogs and their owners.

17. How this is to be achieved is guided by the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012. The policy seeks to manage requests for changes to dog access rules by ensuring all (and often polarised) views are considered in a way to achieve a fair and reasonable decision.

18. The following is an analysis to assist the local board in determining whether or not to propose any changes.

Dog access on current time and season beaches

19. All beaches and foreshore within Albert-Eden local board area are subject to time and season dog access rules, unless specifically stated as a prohibited or off-leash area. The current time and season rule is:

Summer (Labour Weekend until Easter Monday)
9am to 7pm	Before 9am and after 7pm
Sand Prohibited Water Prohibited	Sand Under control on-leash Water Under control off-leash
Winter (Tuesday after Easter Monday until Friday before Labour Weekend)
10am to 4pm	Before 10am and after 4pm
Sand Under control on-leash Water Under control off-leash	Sand Under control off-leash Water Under control off-leash

20. The Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 introduced a region-wide standard summer beach time and season of 10am and 5pm, Labour Weekend to 1 March.

21. The local board must decide whether or not using the standard times and season is appropriate on local beaches as part of its review.

22. Where using the standard times and season would contravene the local board’s statutory obligation to provide for public safety and comfort, the local board must decide on an alternative. For instance, if there are continued high levels of use of beaches beyond the times and dates specified in the standard, local boards should extend the summer times and dates to reflect this.

23. Where an alternative time and season is adopted, approval is required from the Auckland Council Governing Body. In 2014, approval was provided to the Orakei and Kaipatiki local board areas to use different times and dates to ensure public safety and comfort.

24. It is important to note that the standard only provides a definition of daytime hours and a summer season. Local boards determine where the rule applies, the type of dog access (off-leash, on-leash or prohibited) and any rule outside of the summer seasons (e.g. winter).

Summer (Labour Weekend to 1 March)
10am to 5pm	Before 10am and After 5pm
Local board to decide appropriate level of access	Local board to decide appropriate level of access
Other seasons (Local board to determine)
Local board to decide times	Local board to decide times
Local board to decide appropriate level of access	Local board to decide appropriate level of access

Community views

25. Of the 647 respondents to the on-line survey:

· the majority of local respondents indicated that by October they were undertaking ‘summer activities’^{^[1]}

· the majority of respondents indicated that they ceased ‘summer activities’ in March

· dog owners identified themselves as starting ‘summer activities’ latter and ending ‘summer activities’ sooner than non-dog owners

· local non-dog owners prefer the summer time and season rules to be aligned with daylight savings^{^[2]}

· dog owners prefer summer time and season rules to start on the 1 December (45 per cent) and end at the beginning of April which is similar to the end of daylight savings^{^[3]}

· local non-dog owners generally do not want unknown dogs approaching them while at the beach (46 per cent) with 29 per cent being nervous around dogs and 17 per cent stating that they avoid beaches if there are likely to be dogs there

· dog owners generally do not mind being approached by dogs (69 per cent), this drops to 36 per cent for non-dog owners

· Forty-one per cent of dog owners like being approached by dogs while it was 15 per cent for non-dog owners.

26. The table below shows a summary of the preferred dog access rules for the respondents to the online survey from the Albert-Eden Local Board area.

Dog owners		Non-dog owners
Summer		Summer
10am to 6pm	Before 10am and after 6pm	10am to 6pm	Before 10am and after 6pm
Under control on-leash	Under control off-leash	Prohibited	Under control on-leash
Winter		Winter
10am to 5pm	Before 9am and after 5pm	10am to 7pm	Before 9am and after 7pm
Under control off-leash	Under control off-leash	Under control on-leash	Under control off-leash

27. Of the 234 respondents to the face to face on beach survey:

· non-dog owners did not usually mind dogs approaching them (42 per cent)

· dog owners indicated they usually liked dogs approaching them at the beach

· four per cent of non-dog owner respondents avoided visiting the beach if there were likely to be dogs present.

· the majority of non-dog owners (36 per cent) thought that summer rules for dogs should begin at day light savings

· 27 per cent of dog owners thought these rules should start at either daylight savings, or 1^st December

· the majority of both non-dog owners and dog owners indicated summer rules for dogs should end when daylight savings ends and had a preference for dog under control off-leash at all times.

Options in relation to dog access on current time and season beaches

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1 retain the time and season rules on all beach and foreshore areas

Effect of change

No change to rules.

Advantages

· provides some opportunity for dog access (but not to the level sought by dog owners)

· provides for the levels of public safety and comfort sought by non-dog owners in summer (but not winter).

Disadvantages

· does not provide for the needs of dogs and their owners to the level sought by dog owners in summer or winter

· does not provide for the levels of public safety and comfort sought by non-dog owners in winter between 4pm and 7pm.

Option 2 apply amended time and season rule between Point Chevalier Beach and Eric Armishaw Beach removing the distinction between sand and water

Effect of change

This option would apply a time and season rule on the beach and foreshore from southern access point of the car park at Eric Armishaw Park to the northern headland of Point Chevalier Beach. Dogs would be allowed under control on-leash on all other foreshore areas, excluding those identified for the protection of wildlife.

*Summer (Labour Weekend until Easter Monday)*
9am to 7pm	Before 9am and after 7pm
Sand and Water *Prohibited*	Sand and Water Under control on leash
*Winter (Tuesday after Easter Monday until Friday before Labour Weekend)*
10am to 4pm	Before 9am and after 4pm
Sand and Water Under control on leash	Sand and Water Under control off leash

This option would result in a reduction in the dog access to the water during the day in winter and at all times during summer.

Advantages

· provides some opportunity for dog access (but not to the level sought by dog owners)

· provides for the levels of public safety and comfort sought by non-dog owners in summer (but not winter).

· rule easier to understand and enforce with removal of the ‘in water’ rule.

Disadvantages

· does not provide for the needs of dogs and their owners to the level sought by dog owners in summer or winter

· does not provide for the levels of public safety and comfort sought by non-dog owners in winter between 4pm and 7pm.

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 3 (Preferred option) apply amended time and season rule from Point Chevalier Beach to Eric Armishaw Beach allowing under control off-leash before 10am and after 7pm during summer

Effect of Change

Apply a time and season rule on the beach and foreshore between the southern access point of the car park at Eric Armishaw Park and the northern headland of Point Chevalier Beach. Dogs would be allowed under control off-leash on all other foreshore areas, excluding those identified for the protection of wildlife.

*Summer (Labour Weekend until 31 March)*
10am to 7pm	Before 10am and after 7pm
Sand and Water *Prohibited*	Sand and Water Under control off-leash
*Winter (1 April until Friday before Labour Weekend)*
10am to 4pm	Before 10am and after 4pm
Sand and Water Under control on-leash	Sand and Water Under control off-leash

This option would result in an increase in under control off-leash access in the morning and later evening during summer.

Advantages

· provides a balance between the needs of dog owners and the protection of public safety and comfort

· better provides for dog owners needs by providing under control off-leash dog access on beaches before 10am and after 7pm in summer, and a shorter summer season of 31 March

· better provides for opportunities for under control off-leash dog access to the foreshore (excluding in beaches and wildlife areas) at all times in the summer and winter.

· Continues to provide for public safety and comfort during the main part of the day in summer and winter.

· rule easier to understand and enforce with removal of the ‘in water’ rule.

Disadvantages

· does not provide for the needs of dogs and their owners to the level sought by dog owners in winter

· does not provide for the levels of public safety and comfort sought by non-dog owners in summer before 10am and after 7pm, or winter between 4pm and 7pm.

28. The use of the region-wide standard summer beach times and season was not considered to be a reasonably practicable option as the adoption of the standard times and season would either be too restrictive on dog owners or not provide for the safety and comfort of non-dog owners.

Staff recommendation

29. Staff recommend that the current time and season rule be applied from Point Chevalier Beach to Eric Armishaw Beach and be amended to allow under control off-leash before 10am and after 7pm during summer. In addition, allow dogs under control off-leash on the foreshore north of Point Chevalier Beach (Option 3).

30. The reasons for this recommendation are that:

· the time and season rules for the beaches provides the most appropriate balance between the needs of dog owners and the protection of public safety and comfort

· rules easier to understand

· under control off-leash on the foreshore areas, excluding the identified beaches and wildlife protection areas, provides a balance between protecting public safety and comfort in lower use areas and providing alternative areas for dog owners to provide for their needs when there are restrictions on the use of beaches during the summer season.

Wildlife and habitat protection

31. Currently dogs are allowed under control on-leash in park, beach or foreshore areas identified as a significant ecological area (unless the area is specifically identified as a prohibited area or a dog exercise area).

32. The foreshore adjacent to the Pollen Island and the motorway causeway is subject to a Department of Conservation dog prohibition to protect wildlife including shorebirds^{^[4]}.

Staff views

33. Auckland Council biodiversity staff were asked to identify which areas required restrictions on dog access in order to protect wildlife. Feedback received from the biodiversity staff identified the shell bank at the southern end of Eric Armishaw park as being important for the protection of shorebirds. This area is located directly adjacent to the Department of Conservation foreshore prohibition for dogs.

Options in relation to wildlife and habitat protection

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1 Retain the current rule

Effect of change

No change to rule.

Advantages

· none, all areas requiring restrictions on dogs for the protection of wildlife can be specifically identified with appropriate controls being imposed.

Disadvantages

· rule unnecessary because the default rule for parks is under control on-leash

· it is not easy to understand where the rule applies

· changes to significant ecological areas may decrease the ability of dog owners to meet their needs

Option 2 (preferred option) Replace the current general under control on-leash rule with a specific prohibition of dogs south of Eric Armishaw Park

Effect of change

Replace general rule with a specific rule that prohibits dogs on the beach, foreshore and parks southward from the southern access point of the car park at Eric Armishaw Park.

Depending on the final changes to significant ecological areas, this option may provide more dog access than Option 1.

Advantages

· specific rule easier to understand

· all wildlife and habitat areas requiring protection from dogs have been identified

· access for dog owners and their dogs to public places will not generally be altered within parks and reserves as the default rule for parks and reserves remains under control on-leash.

Disadvantages

· none, all areas requiring restrictions on dogs for the protection of wildlife can be specifically identified with appropriate controls being imposed.

Staff recommendation

34. Staff recommend to replace the general rule on dogs within all significant ecological areas with a specific rule to prohibit dogs on the beach southward from the southern access point of the car park at Eric Armishaw Park (Option 2).

35. The reasons for this recommendation are that:

· specific rules are easier to understand than a general rule

· all wildlife and habitat areas requiring protection from dogs have been identified.

Coyle Park, Eric Armishaw Park, and Gribblehirst Park

36. The time and season rule for Coyle and Eric Armishaw Park is currently aligned with the beach and foreshore time and season rules except that when dog are prohibited from the beach dogs are allowed under control on-leash on the park and when dogs are allowed under control on-leash on the beach dogs area allowed under control off-leash on the park.

37. An under control off-leash rule applies on the piece of land on Gribblehirst Park running parallel to and between the football field and Sandringham Road.

Staff views

38. The views of parks and animal management staff are:

· Coyle Park is a high activity area and off-leash dog access is not considered to be appropriate in terms of public safety and comfort during the main use times

· the off-leash area on Gribblehirst Park is considered to be too close to the sports ground and complaints have been received by the animal management staff.

Options in relation to Coyle Park, Eric Armishaw Park, and Gribblehirst Park

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1 retain current rules

Effect of change

No change. The current time and season rules would continue to apply on Coyle Park and Eric Armishaw Park

Under control off-leash dog access would continue to apply on Gribblehirst Park on the piece of land running parallel to and between the football field and Sandringham Road.

Advantages

· provides for the needs of dog owners by retaining the current levels of dog access while protecting the comfort and safety of the users of the parks.

Disadvantages

· does not provide for the safety and comfort of the users of the park as the off-leash area on Gribblehirst Park is considered to be too close to the sports ground a difference in the time and season for the parks and the beach will make the rules more difficult to understand and follow on the ground.

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 2 (Preferred option) amend the time and season rules for Coyle Park and Eric Armishaw Park to maintain the existing link with the beach time and season rules and replace off-leash rule on Gribblehirst Park with an on-leash rule

Effect of change

This option would result in under control off-leash access before 10am and after 7pm on Coyle Park and Eric Armishaw park during the summer.

On Gribblehirst Park replacing the current off-leash rule with an on-leash rule would decrease the level of dog access.

Advantages

· retaining the alignment of the time and season rules on Coyle and Eric Armishaw Park as the adjacent beachs make the rules simpler to understand and follow on the ground

· allows dog owners to better provide for their needs while still protecting public safety and comfort of other users of the park by allowing greater access to Coyle and Eric Armishaw Park for dog owners at off peak times

· better protects public safety and comfort of sports field users directly adjacent to the current off-leash area on Gribblehirst Park where animal management staff have a identified conflict of use.

Disadvantages

· dog owners under control off-leash access will be reduced in the immediate vicinity Gribblehirst Park.

Staff recommendation

39. Staff recommend to amend time and season rules for Coyle Park and Eric Armishaw Park and replace off-leash rule on Gribblehirst Park with an on-leash rule (Option 2).

40. The reasons for this recommendation are that:

· retaining the alignment of the time and season rules on Coyle and Eric Armishaw Park as the adjacent beachs make the rules simpler to understand and follow on the ground

· dog owners will have greater access to Coyle and Eric Armishaw Park at off peak time to better provide for their need while still maintaining the public safety and comfort of other users of the park during peak times

· the removal of the under control off-leash area on Gribblehirst Park will better provide for the safety and comfort of the users of the sports fields.

Heron Park

41. The existing dog access rules for Heron Park under control off-leash to the east of the path running from Cadman Avenue to Saltair Street with the remainder of the park being under control on-leash.

42. On 3 September 2014 the board adopted a concept plan for Heron Park (AE/2014/31). The concept plan indicates an intention to transfer the existing under control off-leash area from the eastern side of the pathway where it is proposed to redevelop the playground and facilities to the western side of the pathway.

Community and staff views

43. Feedback received from Auckland Council parks and animal management staff are supportive of the Heron park concept plan with the movement of the under control off-leash area from the eastern to the western side of the path due to the proposed redevelopment of the park and the location of the high use activity areas.

44. Of the 108 residents and visitors that responded to the on-line survey regarding Heron Park:

· dog owners have a strong preference for under control off-leash access on the western and eastern sides of the path

· non-dog owners have a preference for dogs to be either on-leash or prohibited on the western and eastern sides of the path.

Options in relation to dog access on Heron Park

Option	Advantages and Disadvantages
Option 1 retain current rules Effect of change No change. Dogs would continue to be allowed under control off-leash to the east of the path running from Cadman Avenue to Saltair Street with the remainder of the park being under control on-leash.	Advantages · retains the existing levels of off-leash access for dog owners for dog to provide for their needs. Disadvantages · public comfort will continue not to be met as non-dog owners have indicated a preference under control on-leash to the east of the path around the playground area · does not provide for the level of dog access sought by dog owners the redevelopment of the park is likely to intensify the use of the park in the vicinity of the playground and is likely to create more conflict between dog owners and more vulnerable individuals.
Option 2 allow dogs under control on-leash only Effect of change This option would reduce levels of off-leash dog access by replacing the current under control off-leash rule to the east of the path running from Cadman Avenue to Saltair Street with an under control on-leash rule.	Advantages · provides for the level of safety and comfort preferred by non-dog owners which is under control on-leash dog access · the redevelopment of the park is likely to intensify the use of the park in the vicinity of the playground and allowing dogs under control on-leash within this area will allow for the integration of owners and their dogs with the higher intensity activities. Disadvantages · does not provide for the level of dog access sought by dog owners.

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1 retain current rules

Effect of change

No change. Dogs would continue to be allowed under control off-leash to the east of the path running from Cadman Avenue to Saltair Street with the remainder of the park being under control on-leash.

Advantages

· retains the existing levels of off-leash access for dog owners for dog to provide for their needs.

Disadvantages

· public comfort will continue not to be met as non-dog owners have indicated a preference under control on-leash to the east of the path around the playground area

· does not provide for the level of dog access sought by dog owners the redevelopment of the park is likely to intensify the use of the park in the vicinity of the playground and is likely to create more conflict between dog owners and more vulnerable individuals.

Option 2 allow dogs under control on-leash only

Effect of change

This option would reduce levels of off-leash dog access by replacing the current under control off-leash rule to the east of the path running from Cadman Avenue to Saltair Street with an under control on-leash rule.

Advantages

· provides for the level of safety and comfort preferred by non-dog owners which is under control on-leash dog access

· the redevelopment of the park is likely to intensify the use of the park in the vicinity of the playground and allowing dogs under control on-leash within this area will allow for the integration of owners and their dogs with the higher intensity activities.

Disadvantages

· does not provide for the level of dog access sought by dog owners.

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 3 (Preferred option) implement park concept plan

Effect of change

This option effectively switches the under control off-leash area from the east to the west of the park. Dogs would be allowed under control on-leash access to area east of the western end of the playground and allowed under control off-leash access to the area west of the western end of the playground and bounded on the western boundary by the stream.

While the type of dog access on each part of the park will be altered, under control off-leash access will be maintained at a similar level.

Advantages

· the amended location of the under control off-leash areas implements the concept plan approved by the local board

· the concept plan maintains a balance between the needs of dog owners and other users

· the boundaries of under control off-leash areas are easily identifiable.

Disadvantages

· does not provide for the level of dog access sought by dog owners.

Staff recommendation

45. Staff recommend to implement the park concept plan (Option 3).

46. The reasons for this recommendation are that this option:

· the relocation of the under control off-leash area implements the park concept plan approved by the local board

· the concept plan maintains a balance between the needs of dog owners and other users

· boundaries of under control off-leash areas are easily identifiable ‘on the ground’.

Picnic areas and fitness apparatus areas

47. Currently the Albert-Eden local board area has general rules that require dogs to be under control on-leash in ‘picnic areas’ and ‘fitness apparatus areas’. None of these terms are defined.

Staff views

48. Feedback received from Auckland Council parks and animal management staff was that:

· there are no local picnic areas that have easily identified boundaries or are of a meaningful size that justifies a specific dog access rule in Albert-Eden

· the existence of picnic areas should inform decisions on dog access on the whole or more meaningful part of a park

· Coyle Park has been identified as a high use area and is recommended that the current time and season rule be replaced with under control on-leash at all times

· no other specific parks were considered to warrant further restrictions due to the existence of picnic facilities

· there are no fitness apparatus areas that warrant dog access rules that are different from the surrounding park rules.

Options in relation to picnic and fitness apparatus areas

Option	Advantages and Disadvantages
Option 1 retain general under control on-leash rule Effect of change No change. Dogs allowed under control on-leash in designated picnic and fitness apparatus areas.	Advantages · none Disadvantages · unnecessary. The default rule for parks is already under control on-leash · it is not easy to know where picnic and fitness areas are · there are no local picnic areas or fitness apparatus that have easily identifiable boundaries or are of a size to justify a specific rule. It is better practice for the existence of picnic areas to inform decisions on the whole or more meaningful part of a park (e.g. Coyle Park) · the rules are not well known, not widely communicated, not easily communicated, and not easily enforced.
Option 2 (Preferred option) replace current general rule with a specific rule for high use area of parks Effect of change This option would replace the existing under control on-leash rule on picnic and fitness apparatus areas with specific dog access rules for high use areas of parks (see Options in relation to time and season parks and sundry changes to off-leash areas). This option will have little effect on the ground as the default rule for parks in the Albert-Eden Local Board Area is under control on-leash.	Advantages · removes confusing and ambiguous rules. Disadvantages · none

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1 retain general under control on-leash rule

Effect of change

No change. Dogs allowed under control on-leash in designated picnic and fitness apparatus areas.

Advantages

· none

Disadvantages

· unnecessary. The default rule for parks is already under control on-leash

· it is not easy to know where picnic and fitness areas are

· there are no local picnic areas or fitness apparatus that have easily identifiable boundaries or are of a size to justify a specific rule. It is better practice for the existence of picnic areas to inform decisions on the whole or more meaningful part of a park (e.g. Coyle Park)

· the rules are not well known, not widely communicated, not easily communicated, and not easily enforced.

Option 2 (Preferred option) replace current general rule with a specific rule for high use area of parks

Effect of change

This option would replace the existing under control on-leash rule on picnic and fitness apparatus areas with specific dog access rules for high use areas of parks (see Options in relation to time and season parks and sundry changes to off-leash areas).

This option will have little effect on the ground as the default rule for parks in the Albert-Eden Local Board Area is under control on-leash.

Advantages

· removes confusing and ambiguous rules.

Disadvantages

· none

Staff recommendation

49. Staff recommend that the existing under control on-leash rule on picnic and fitness apparatus areas be removed (Option 2).

50. The reasons for this recommendation are that:

· specific rules are easier to understand

· options for Coyle Park have been identified under the section ‘Options in relation to Coyle Park, Eric Armishaw Park, and Gribblehirst Park’.

Dog exercise areas

51. The term ‘dog exercise area’ is used to describe 14 parks^{^[5]} where dogs can be taken under control off-leash.

52. The policy on dogs provides an Auckland-wide definition for ‘under control off-leash areas’ which refer to a place shared with other users. ‘Designated dog exercise areas’ refer to a place where dog owners are the priority user (e.g. what is often also referred to as a ‘dog park’).

53. The policy on dogs provides criteria for assessing the suitability of a location as a designated dog exercise area.

54. It is important to note that regardless of the name, dog owners will still be able to take their dogs to these places under control off a leash, unless a dog has been classified by council as a ‘dangerous dog’.

55. A dangerous dog is an individual dog known to be a threat to the safety of people or animals. Classified dangerous dogs must be muzzled in public at all times and under control on-leash in any public place that is not a designated dog exercise area.

Staff views

56. Feedback received from Auckland Council parks and animal management staff are that all 14 parks are shared spaces where dog owners are “shared user” and should be called “under control off-leash areas”.

Options in relation to dog exercise areas

Option	Advantages and Disadvantages
Option 1 retain current use of the term dog exercise area to describe off-leash areas Effect of change No change.	Advantages · none. Disadvantages · inconsistent with policy on dogs · all 14 parks are shared spaces.
Option 2 (Preferred option) reclassify dog exercise areas as under control off-leash areas Effect of change No change for majority of dog owners. Dog owners will still be able to take their dogs to these places under control off a leash, unless a dog has been classified by council as a ‘dangerous dog’.	Advantages · implements the policy on dogs · all 14 parks are shared spaces · no spaces meet the criteria for a designated dog exercise area in the policy on dogs · no change in dog access for the majority of dog owners · provides greater protection for other park users as will prohibit dangerous dogs from being allowed off-leash in these areas. Disadvantages · none.

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1 retain current use of the term dog exercise area to describe off-leash areas

Effect of change

No change.

Advantages

· none.

Disadvantages

· inconsistent with policy on dogs

· all 14 parks are shared spaces.

Option 2 (Preferred option) reclassify dog exercise areas as under control off-leash areas

Effect of change

No change for majority of dog owners. Dog owners will still be able to take their dogs to these places under control off a leash, unless a dog has been classified by council as a ‘dangerous dog’.

Advantages

· implements the policy on dogs

· all 14 parks are shared spaces

· no spaces meet the criteria for a designated dog exercise area in the policy on dogs

· no change in dog access for the majority of dog owners

· provides greater protection for other park users as will prohibit dangerous dogs from being allowed off-leash in these areas.

Disadvantages

· none.

Staff recommendation

57. Staff recommend to reclassify the 14 dog exercise areas as under control off-leash areas (Option 2).

58. The reasons for this recommendation are that:

· it implements the policy on dogs by clearly distinguishing between shared spaces where dogs can be taken under control off-leash, and spaces where dog owners are a priority user (e.g. what is often also referred to as a ‘dog park’)

· all 14 parks are shared spaces

· majority of dog owner will continue to be able to take their dog under control off-leash in these spaces

Next steps

59. Following the decision on proposed changes, staff will update the statement of proposal to reflect the option selected by the local board.

60. The statement of proposal (together with proposals from other local boards) will be publicly notified for submissions as part of the dog registration process in June 2015.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

61. The views of other local boards have not been sought.

Maori Impact Statement

62. Managing dog access in areas of significance to Maori can help achieve outcomes of the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau. In this instance, no impacts have been identified.

63. Feedback from Mana Whenua representatives at a Hui held in March 2015 related to the ability of iwi to determine dog access on Marae, a focus on control, responsible dog ownership, and ensuring the protection of sensitive ecological areas.

Implementation Issues

64. There are no implementation issues associated with this decision to adopt a statement of proposal.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Statement of Proposal	43
b View	Decision-making framework and considerations	67

Signatories

Authors

Justin Walters - Policy Analyst

Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws

Michael Sinclair - Manager Social Policy and Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

06 May 2015

Review of Alcohol Bans 2015

File No.: CP2015/06945

Purpose

1. To adopt a proposal on the review of alcohol bans in the Albert-Eden Local Board area.

Executive Summary

2. The Albert-Eden Local Board has the delegated responsibility to review all 108 existing local alcohol bans in its local board area by 31 October 2015.

3. The purpose of the review is to identify which existing local alcohol bans meet the new higher statutory threshold to enable them to be retained. Alcohol bans that do not meet the threshold will lapse on 31 October 2015.

4. As part of the review, the local board may choose to use a public submission process in order to get a fuller understanding of the impact of alcohol use in the current alcohol ban areas.

5. To assist the local board, staff have undertaken an analysis of legacy council information and recent police data. This information has been presented at local board workshops in early 2015. During these workshops the local board also expressed a preference for using a public submission process to complete the review.

6. Staff recommend to:

· use a public submission process to complete the review and to adopt a proposal to facilitate this (Attachment C)

· propose to retain seven existing alcohol bans

· propose to lapse 101 existing alcohol bans unless sufficient evidence is provided through the public submission process.

7. Staff will update the proposal as necessary to reflect the decisions by the local board.

Recommendations

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) Confirm the use of a public submission process to complete the review of alcohol bans in the local board area.

b) Adopt the proposal titled “Proposal Review of Alcohol Bans – Albert-Eden Local Board May 2015” in Attachment C for the purposes of the public submission process.

c) Confirm that the proposal contained in Attachment C is in accordance with relevant requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 and Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014.

d) Authorise the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws to make any minor edits or amendments to the Proposal to correct any identified errors or typographical edits.

e) Authorise the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws, in consultation with the local board chair, to make any amendments to the Proposal to reflect decisions made by the local board.

f) Appoints Chairperson Haynes and all members of the Albert-Eden Local Board as a panel to receive, hear and deliberate on submissions and other relevant information and recommend changes to the Board.

g) Delegates to the Chairperson the ability to make changes to the panel appointed under (c) where this becomes necessary because of the withdrawal or unavailability of any of those persons.

Background

8. Alcohol bans are an accepted and effective way of helping to reduce alcohol related harm. They limit the amount of alcohol consumed in public places. This helps reduce harm including levels of intoxication, noise, litter, harm and disorder.

9. Recent amendments to legislation to require a review of existing alcohol bans against the new higher threshold is intended to ensure that alcohol bans are only retained in areas of high alcohol related crime or disorder.

10. Alcohol bans are made under the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014. Alcohol bans prohibit the consumption of alcohol in public places and are enforced by the New Zealand Police using powers of search, seizure, and arrest. Penalties include an infringement fee of $250.

11. Local boards have the delegated responsibility to review existing local alcohol bans in their local board areas by 31 October 2015. This does not include a review of existing alcohol bans in areas of regional significance which is the responsibility of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee, nor consideration of new alcohol bans which will be subject to a separate process to commence after 31 October 2015.

12. Since the commencement of the review in November 2014, the local board at workshops has been presented with the statutory decision making requirements, review process options, legacy council information, and recent police data.

13. The local board has expressed a preference to use a public submission process to complete the review. This process requires:

· the local board to adopt a proposal by May 2015 (Attachment C)

· the proposal (together with proposals from other local boards) will be publicly notified in June 2015

· the local board to hold hearings, deliberations and make decisions on submissions by August 2015

· any alcohol ban not deemed to meet the statutory evidence test will lapse on 31 October 2015.

14. The public submission process is specifically designed to obtain evidence of alcohol-related crime or disorder from the public for those alcohol bans where legacy council information or police data is limited. The decision required of the local board is to decide which existing alcohol bans to propose to retain and which to propose to lapse unless sufficient evidence is provided through the public submission process.

Decision-making requirements

15. In making decisions, the local board must be satisfied that any existing alcohol bans proposed to be retained comply with a range of statutory and bylaw requirements.

16. Changes to the Local Government Act 2002 introduced a higher threshold to be met to allow an existing alcohol ban to be retained. Alcohol bans that do not meet the higher threshold will lapse on 31 October 2015.

17. The most important requirements as outlined in the bylaw are:

· evidence that the alcohol ban area has experienced a high level of crime or disorder that can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area

· that the alcohol ban is appropriate and proportionate in the light of the evidence and can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people's rights and freedoms

· consideration of community-focused solutions as an alternative to or to complement an alcohol ban area

· consideration of the views of owners, occupiers, or persons that council has reason to believe are representative of the interests of owners or occupiers, of premises within the area to which the alcohol ban will apply

· consideration to using one of the following times for consistency:

§ 24 hours, 7 days a week (at all times alcohol ban);

§ 7pm to 7am daily (evening alcohol ban)

§ 10pm to 7pm daylight saving and 7pm to 7am outside daylight saving (night time alcohol ban)

§ 7pm on the day before to 7am on the day after any weekend, public holiday or Christmas/New Year holiday period (weekend and holiday alcohol ban).

18. Further detail of the decision-making requirements is appended to the proposal in Attachment C.

Comment

Current local alcohol bans

19. There are currently 108 alcohol bans in the Albert-Eden Local Board area summarised in the table below. These have been independently assessed and evidence is included in Attachments A and B.

Type of alcohol ban area (number)	Alcohol ban time
Town centre (5)	24 hours a day 7 days a week
Park, beach and foreshore reserve (102)	Daylight saving 10pm – 8am non-daylight savings 8pm – 8am
Event (1)	12 hours before and after a major event

Evidence

20. Evidence of alcohol-related crime or disorder has been obtained from legacy council files, and data from the New Zealand Police for the period 1 September 2013 – 30 September 2014 has also been supplied.

21. Other sources of Auckland-wide alcohol-related crime or disorder information were investigated but did not provide evidence able to be linked to particular alcohol bans. Other sources included service request data lodged through the council call centre, graffiti and Ambulance and Emergency Service data.

22. Evidence may also be gathered through a public submission process. Documented evidence may be provided by way of:

· a written account of incidents of alcohol-related crime or disorder people have witnessed prior to, after, or recently in relation to a particular alcohol ban having been introduced

· historical media articles.

Options

23. For each of these areas, the local board has two options. To retain the alcohol ban (with or without amendments to areas or times) or to allow the ban to lapse.

24. In terms of which alcohol bans to retain or lapse, the local board can review the summary of evidence provided for individual alcohol bans in Attachments A and B and choose to:

· confirm the list of alcohol bans proposed to be retained (Attachment A)

· confirm the list of alcohol bans proposed to lapse (Attachment B)

· identify any changes to the list of alcohol bans proposed to retain (Attachment A)

· identify any changes to the list of alcohol bans proposed to lapse (Attachment B).

25. It is important to note that the statutory requirements of this review means the retention of alcohol bans must be determined on evidence of high levels of alcohol-related crime or disorder.

Recommendation

26. Staff recommend:

· the use of a public submission process to complete the review and to adopt the “Proposal Review of Alcohol Bans – Albert-Eden Local Board May 2015” to facilitate this (Attachment C)

· retain the following seven existing alcohol bans (Attachment A):

o Eden Valley Town Centre

o Kingsland Town Centre

o Mount Albert Town Centre

o Mt Albert War Memorial Reserve (including associated car park)

o Mt Eden Town Centre

o Point Chevalier Town Centre

o Streets surrounding Eden Park (Major Events)

· allow the remaining 101 alcohol bans to lapse unless sufficient evidence is provided through a public submission process to justify their retention (Attachment B).

27. The reasons for this recommendation are:

· there is sufficient evidence of a high level of alcohol-related crime or disorder to retain seven existing alcohol bans

· the alcohol bans retained are appropriate, proportionate, and reasonable

· the hours of alcohol bans retained are aligned to those contained in the bylaw

· the public submission process provides an effective and efficient way to obtain further evidence (in a useable format) to support decision making.

Next steps

28. The proposal (together with proposals from other local boards) will be publicly notified in June 2015.

29. Staff will update the proposal as necessary to reflect the decisions by the local board.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

30. Since the commencement of the review in November 2014, the local board at workshops has been presented with the statutory decision making requirements, review process options, legacy council information, and recent police data.

Māori impact statement

31. Managing alcohol related harm associated with people consuming alcohol in public places increases opportunities for health and wellbeing, which is consistent with the outcomes of the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau.

32. Feedback from mana whenua representatives at a hui held in March 2015 supported alcohol bans in principle, and believe that non-regulatory approaches should be considered to help reduce alcohol related harm.

Implementation Issues

33. There are no implementation issues associated with this decision to adopt a proposal.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Alcohol bans proposed to retain	79
b View	Alcohol bans proposed to lapse	81
c View	Proposal	89

Signatories

Authors

Mike Dance - Policy Analyst

Kylie Hill - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

06 May 2015

2014/15 Operational and capital expenditure budget reallocation

File No.: CP2015/06512

Purpose

1. This report provides the Albert-Eden Local Board with an overview of 2014/2015 operational and capital expenditure budget reallocation opportunities.

Executive Summary

2. The following budget lines cannot carry over into the 2014/2015 financial year:

Opex

· Community Engagement: $17,000

· Economic Development $14,000

· Heritage Features: $50,000

· Stream Enhancements $14,000

Capex

· Fowlds Park toilets: $50,000

· Governance cycle racks: $57,000

3. If the Albert-Eden Local Board resolves, operational and capital expenditure budget reallocation can assist in allowing a number of Board programmes, projects and initiatives to proceed before the end of the 2014/15 financial year.

4. Lead Financial Advisors and Local Board Services request that local boards retain OPEX and CAPEX budgets for their intended purpose and to exercise restraint in expenditure to meet organisation savings targets.

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) receives the 2014/15 Operational and capital expenditure budget reallocation report.

b) note that Lead Financial Advisors and Local Board Services request that local boards retain OPEX and CAPEX budgets for their intended purpose and to exercise restraint in expenditure to meet organisation savings targets.

c) approves the following spends from the Community Engagement operational budget 2014/15:

Project	Cost
Community project – Intergenerational forum	$1,000
Dog bylaw community consultation	$5,000
Total	$6,000

d) approves the re-allocation of amounts from the following budget lines to the Local improvement programme operational budget 2014/15:

· Community Engagement: $11,000

· Economic Development $14,000

· Heritage Features: $50,000

· Stream Enhancements $14,000

e) notes that the remaining Local Improvement programme operational budget 2014/15 including reallocated funds is $107,212.00.

f) approves the following projects for delivery from the remaining Local Improvement programme operational budget 2014/15:

Project	Cost
Moa Reserve Planting	$1,500
Pt. Chevalier Heritage brochure	$12,000
Pollard Park planting	$5,000
Stage Two Sustainability programme in Mt Albert and Pt Chevalier	$14,000
Rock wall weeding programme including Nicholson Park, Marivare Reserve, Bellevue Reserve, Melville Park	$50,000
Walmer Reserve pa harakeke support	$8,000
Windmill Reserve planting	$14,000
Total	$104,500.00

g) approves that the projected remaining $2,712 in the Local improvement programme operational budget 2014/15 be used for the completion of approved projects where necessary.

h) approves the re-allocation of amounts from the following budget lines to the Local improvement programme capital budget 2014/15:

· Fowlds Park toilets: $50,000

· Governance cycle racks: $57,000

i) notes that the Local improvement programme capital budget 2014/15 including reallocated funds is $114,228.00.

j) approves the following projects for delivery from the remaining Local improvement programme capital budget 2014/15:

Project	Cost
Cycle racks at Te Mahurehure Marae and Nixon Park	$10,000
Essex Reserve, Nicholson Park and Sainsbury Reserve projects additional funding	$85,000
Minor Parks projects including GPS solution for the Pt Chevalier pontoons, Begbie path renewal budget top-up and Harbour View toilet privacy partition improvements	$9,000
Quantity survey work for the Fowlds Park toilets	$10,000
Total	$114,000.00

k) approves the remaining $228.00 in the Local improvement programme capital budget 2014/15 to go into savings.

Comments

5. The Albert-Eden Local Board has indicated a preference for budget reallocation, where possible, in order to deliver Council and Local Board programmes, projects and initiatives across a range of areas and to assist local community groups in providing activities that make a positive contribution within the Albert-Eden Local Board area.

6. Subject matter expert officers have reported back to the Board on the feasibility of a number of proposals that probably can be delivered within the current financial year.

7. Lead Financial Advisors and Local Board Services request that local boards retain OPEX and CAPEX budgets for their intended purpose and to exercise restraint in expenditure to meet organisation savings targets.

8. The below 2014/15 budgets have been identified for reallocation:

Opex

· Community Engagement: $17,000

· Economic Development $14,000

· Heritage Features: $50,000

· Stream Enhancements $14,000

Capex

· Fowlds Park toilets: $50,000

· Governance cycle racks: $57,000

9. The following projects have been identified as deliverable from the reallocated budgets:

Project	Cost
Opex
Community project – Intergenerational forum	$1,000
Dog bylaw community consultation	$5,000
Moa Reserve Planting	$1,500
Pt. Chevalier Heritage brochure	$12,000
Pollard Park planting	$5,000
Stage Two Sustainability programme in Mt Albert, Pt Chevalier and Epsom Community Centre	$14,000
Rock wall weeding programme including Nicholson Park, Marivare Reserve, Bellevue Reserve, Melville Park	$50,000
Walmer Reserve pa harakeke support	$8,000
Windmill Reserve planting	$14,000
Capex
Cycle racks at Te Mahurehure Marae and Nixon Park	$10,000
Essex Reserve, Nicholson Park and Sainsbury Reserve projects additional funding	$85,000
Minor Parks projects including GPS solution for the Pt Chevalier pontoons, Begbie path renewal budget top-up and Harbour View toilet privacy partition improvements	$9,000
Quantity survey work for the Fowlds Park toilets	$10,000

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10. The information contained within this report is for the consideration of the Albert-Eden Local Board.

Māori impact statement

11. Iwi will be advised of any projects that may have significance to them and will be consulted accordingly.

Implementation

12. Key stakeholders will be advised of any projects that may have significance to them and will be consulted accordingly.

13. All projects need to be started and completed prior to 30 June 2015. Budgets for projects funded from operational expenditure must be fully expended within the 2014/2015 financial year.

14. The ability to spend/deliver outcomes is dependent on the availability of Auckland Council staff or consultant project management resource.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Blaire Lodge-Perry - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

06 May 2015

Developing the Empowered Communities Approach - Next Steps

File No.: CP2015/07278

Purpose

1. This report provides an update on the Empowered Communities Approach (ECA), and enables the Albert-Eden Local Board to provide formal feedback. Resolutions will be reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 4 June 2015.

Executive Summary

2. The Mayor’s Proposal for the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP) includes developing a more empowered community approach to the work of Auckland Council.

3. The Community Development, Arts and Culture Department of the Operations Division is leading the development of ECA, with support from Local Board Services and others.

4. The purpose of the ECA is to develop a new, more effective and empowering approach to the way council delivers services and supports community activities. The ECA will establish a new operating model for the Community Development and Safety (CDS) unit which will shift its service delivery to have a greater focus on local and community empowerment, with a view to embedding this way of working across the council family.

5. The proposed approach builds on the Thriving Communities Action Plan Ngā Hapori Momoho (April 2014).

6. The proposed approach is guided by the principle of Empowered Communities: Enabling Council resulting in improved outcomes for Aucklanders. The approach identifies what will change, what council will do and enabling ways of working.

7. The proposed approach was reported to local boards and the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in April 2015.

8. The key functions of the new operating model are to support local boards, build community capacity and capability, increase diverse community input into the work of council, catalyse the approach across the whole of council and build the capacity of the organisation to work in ways which empower communities.

9. There will be a shift from delivering community development activities directly to communities, to using community development practices to achieve local board and governing body aspirations and outcomes.

10. The proposed operating model will consist of three components which together will better support the delivery of local board plans as well as address complex community issues across Auckland. These components are provisionally called: local community brokers, the community practice hub and Auckland-wide response.

11. A reduction in the cost to deliver community development over time is expected, starting with savings in the 2015/2016 financial year.

12. Community development and engagement is at the heart of the role of local boards. The local board plans all include a focus on developing strong communities. Proposed changes to council’s community development approach are of significant interest to local boards.

13. To date the ECA has been informed by the following input from local boards: Political Advisory Group (PAG), two chairs and portfolio holders’ workshops and individual local board workshops.

14. Community and council staff consultation has also informed the approach.

15. The final PAG meeting is on 4 May 2015. Feedback from that meeting is either attached to this report, or where local board meetings are already in May, will be tabled at the meeting.

16. The transition timeline is for work to be done on models and roles from now until the end of June. From July to December the approach will be implemented to meet local board needs and in 2016 as the approach matures and evolves it will be extended across the council family.

17. This report enables the Albert-Eden Local Board to make resolutions on the ECA. These resolutions will be reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 4 June 2015.

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) make resolutions on the proposed Empowered Communities Approach, for consideration as part of the report to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in June.

Comments

Background

18. The Mayor’s Proposal for the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP) includes developing a more empowered community approach to the work of Auckland Council. The proposed changes to the community development function are:

· to transition delivery to a more empowered community approach

· to move away from direct delivery (and therefore save overheads) and fund community groups to deliver more

· for local boards to play a much more active role by allocating more funding through them.

19. The purpose of the ECA is to develop a new, more effective and empowering approach to the way council delivers services and supports community activities. The ECA will establish a new operating model for the Community Development and Safety (CDS) unit which will shift its service delivery to have a greater focus on local and community empowerment, with a view to embedding this way of working across the council family.

20. The proposed approach builds on the Thriving Communities Action Plan Ngā Hapori Momoho (April 2014). It will bring to life the principles, focus areas and actions by providing a clear operational direction to enable implementation of the plan across council.

21. The approach also provides an implementation framework for the High Performing Council’s special focus area ‘Engaging and Enabling Communities’. The approach could play a significant role in building best practice across the organisation in the four high performance behaviours: develop, serve, collaborate and achieve.

22. The approach is guided by the principle of Empowered Communities: Enabling Council resulting in improved outcomes for Aucklanders. The approach identifies what will change, what council will do and enabling ways of working. This approach was reported to local boards and the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in April 2015. More information is provided in Attachment A.

The new operating model

23. A primary focus for the new unit will be on working with other parts of council to provide community development support, expertise and assistance to local board projects and activities so that every opportunity for council to work in ways that are enabling of communities is maximised. There will be a shift from delivering community development activities directly to communities, to using community development practices to achieve local board and governing body aspirations.

24. The key functions of the new operating model are to:

· support the council to work seamlessly together at local board level

· build community capacity and capability

· increase diverse community input into the work of council

· embed the approach across the whole of council and build the capacity of the organisation

· to work in ways that empower communities.

25. The proposed operating model will consist of three components which together will better support the delivery of local board plans as well as address complex community issues across Auckland. These components are provisionally called: local community brokers, the community practice hub and Auckland-wide response.

26. The local community brokers are strategic roles. They will be co-located alongside local board services teams. They will work alongside local board advisors to support and join up the work of all departments delivering on local board outcomes and will support devolving more resources to the community. The broker’s work programme will be based on local board outcomes. The role will be tailored to meet local board and community needs and they will provide a portal into council for the community.

27. The community practice hub consists of a dedicated team of expert practitioners with skills including community development, facilitation and project management. They will work alongside the local board teams to deliver programmes and tools, capacity building for communities, inclusive engagement and participation programmes and also provide operational support for local community brokers, local boards and across the council family.

28. The local community brokers will work with the local board members and advisors to identify which projects offer opportunities to work in a more empowered communities way and are priorities for support from the community practice hub. The hub will then develop a work programme incorporating priorities from across local boards.

29. If new community priorities start to emerge, the local community brokers will work with local board members and staff to agree next steps. The community practice hub will have some capacity to support work on emerging issues if they become local board priorities.

30. The Auckland-wide response will be a team of people with specialist skills. They will work on significant and/ or complex issues that would benefit from an all of Auckland approach, internal systems and processes and barriers and activity where a regional response delivers efficiency/ effectiveness benefits.

31. Different responses will be needed around Auckland taking into account community capacity, strength and resilience. This range of responses will need to cover those areas where there is well developed community capacity to opportunities to further development community capacity and newly formed communities.

32. The impact of the approach will be that:

· local boards are able to access tailored and strategic support

· community development practice enhances the work of the whole of the council family

· communities have more access to resources and support to do things for themselves

· the empowered communities approach is embedded throughout the organisation.

33. There are a number of empowering initiatives and activities, both new and existing, which could be further developed to empower communities.

34. A reduction in the cost to deliver community development over time is expected, starting with savings in the 2015/2016 financial year.

35. Community development and engagement is at the heart of the role of local boards. The local board plans all include a focus on developing strong communities. Proposed changes to council’s community development approach are of significant interest to local boards.

36. This report provides the opportunity to provide formal feedback. This will be reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 4 June 2015.

Political Advisory Group

37. A Political Advisory Group (PAG) has provided strategic advice and guidance to staff during the development of the empowered communities approach.

38. At their meeting on 16 April 2015 the PAG supported:

· the key functions of the new unit

· the three components of the new operating model (local community brokers, community practice hub and Auckland-wide response).

39. Other feedback from the PAG included the need to consider the relationship with the Māori Responsiveness Framework and the need for staff to have cultural competencies. There was also discussion around whether the local community brokers should be located within Community Development and Safety or Local Board Services, and comment that local board outcomes are the same as community aspirations.

40. Staff will report back to the PAG on 4 May with the following:

· revised approach and model

· approach to devolving resources

· tools to support implementing the approach.

41. Feedback from the PAG meeting on 4 May forms attachment 2 to this report. However, due to the timing of this PAG, where local boards are meeting early in May this will mean the tabling of attachment 2.

ECA timeline

42. The remaining key milestones are shown in the table below.

Stage

Date

Purpose

Budget Committee

7-8 May

LTP budget decisions including CDS budget for 2015/2016

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

4 June

Endorse ECA and the CDS operational model

Consultation and engagement

43. The community was consulted through a limited number of community-led, and staff run, workshops around the region. Staff were also consulted.

44. The key points from the consultation were:

· use a high trust model that is values based

· value what communities bring to the table

· one size does not fit all

· capacity building is critical and a fresh approach is required

· a whole of council approach

· respond to the diversity of Auckland’s communities.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

45. The ECA aims to provide a much more active role for local boards in community development.

46. ECA builds on the strong focus on community led planning and development in the local board plans 2014.

47. Local board chairs met to consider ECA on 30 March. The following four principles arose from this meeting:

· local boards need to be empowered themselves so that they can in turn empower their communities in a way that suits the area

· local board outcomes are community outcomes and need to be central to and drive the community empowerment approach and focus under the direction of the local board.

· community empowerment is not as simple as channelling funds through community groups, which has risks. Community empowerment is an approach and any change to the current needs to be carefully staged and made appropriate for each local board.

· within change there are always opportunities but they carry risks which can be minimised through careful planning, full engagement of the main parties and undertaken within a timeframe that is feasible for significant change to take place.

48. Local boards’ formal views are sought through this paper. This builds on earlier opportunities to provide informal feedback at local board workshops during April and at two workshops for local board chairs and portfolio holders.

49. The summary feedback from the chairs and portfolio holders meeting on 20 April was:

· the budget approach and costs associated with the proposed model are required to be able to make an informed response. There was also desire for better utilisation of the budget to achieve improved outcomes. Additionally, it was unclear how the model will deliver more resources to local boards

· the broker role needs to operate on a continuum that is tailored to local boards and can deliver across the continuum from those with contracted out services to communities with less capacity to take on additional services

· the broker role bests sits in local board services but the overlap with local board advisor roles needs to be explored

· the community practice hub services are valuable but local boards do not want to have to pitch for resources. A bottom up approach is preferred and the hub should also use resources from other areas of council and the community. It was also unclear where the expertise exists to deliver the hub services

· uncertainty over what the Auckland wide response team will deliver and concern that it will not deliver local board priorities. Local boards could be supported to work collaboratively on common issues as community development is delegated to local boards. The community brokers can collaborate to tackle the systemic issues. Regional issues should be funded by the governing body and Community and Social Policy can cover these Auckland wide issues

· the need to respond to diverse and disempowered communities

· the transition process was unclear and raised concerns over delivery in coming months.

There were also recurring themes from early discussions:

· one size does not fit all

· the model needs to focus on delivering local board priorities, which are the same as the communities’ priorities.

Māori impact statement

50. The ECA has a direct relationship with the Māori Responsiveness Framework, which sets out two key areas of activity; the first being understanding the rights and interests of Māori. The second, and closely intertwined, is acting on the needs and aspirations of Māori.

51. To be a High Performing Organisation a key component is engaging with and enabling communities, which means considering and understanding Māori needs and issues and having the capability and capacity to improve process and systems to enhance involvement. The approach described in this report sets out a shift in the way the organisation delivers services, which includes improving outcomes for Māori. The Council Māori Responsiveness Leadership Group has been established to enable better outcomes with Māori in the areas of cultural, social, economic effectiveness for Māori and treaty settlements and moving to a more empowered community way of working will help make progress in all these areas.

52. There are a number of initiatives underway which can help inform the Empowered Community Approach such the Māori Input to Decision Making project in the south of Auckland. This, and other activities being undertaken in partnership with Mana Whenau around the environment, provide strong examples of how Māori can be engaged with and participate to embed the proposed approach to communities.

53. Engagement with mataawaka and mana whenua is ongoing to enable staff to understand potential impacts.

54. A representative from the Independent Māori Statutory Board sits on the PAG.

Implementation

55. The transition timeline is for work to be done on models and roles from now until the end of June. From July to December the approach will be implemented to meet local board needs and in 2016 as the approach matures and evolves it will be extended across the council family.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Empowered Communities: Enabling Council	135
b View	Feedback from PAG meeting 4 May 2015 - To be tabled during meeting	137

Signatories

Author

Helen Dodd - Strategic Advisor, Local Board Services

Authorisers

Karen Lyons – Manager, Local Board Services

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

06 May 2015

Auckland Transport Monthly Update Report – May 2015

File No.: CP2015/07386

Purpose

1. This report provides an update on local transport matters over the last month for the Albert-Eden Local Board.

Executive Summary

2. This report contains a general monthly update on transport matters both locally and from across Auckland and a list of issues currently being addressed by Auckland Transport for the Albert-Eden Local Board.

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) receives the Auckland Transport Monthly Update report.

b) notes that in September 2014 the Board resolved to authorize design and construction of the new Cadman Ave footpath provided the total cost was less than the Rough Order of Cost of $14,000 provided.

c) notes the Final Cost Estimate of $ 18,500 is $ 4,500 more than originally estimated for construction of a new footpath in Cadman Ave

d) authorises an increase in then funding allocated from the Local Board’s Transport Capital from $ 14,000 to $ 18,500 and requests that Auckland Transport complete construction.

Comments

Responding to Previous Resolutions

3. Resolution number AE/2015/4

a) That the Albert-Eden Local Board requests Auckland Transport officers attend a meeting with the transport portfolio holders to discuss the long term programme of road resealing to ascertain whether some local streets can be repaved to hot-mix standard.

At the time this report was drafted a meeting had not been scheduled. The best course of action appears to be for the members to use Auckland Transport’s use the Annual Work Programme areas of interest.

By reviewing the proposed works discussions can then be entered into about which ones a different level of service could be considered for.

4. Resolution number AE/2015/18

b) That the Albert-Eden Local Board delegates the board’s planning portfolio leads to work with Auckland Transport and council Planning officers to address the issues raised by the residents

Auckland Transport staff are available to provide information and support as requested.

5. Resolution number AE/2015/29

d) That the Albert-Eden Local Board requests Auckland Transport execute the design improvement to Herdman and Waterbank Road, as agreed with the Well-Connected Alliance in 2013, noting that this is critical work for Waterview Reserve

It appears that there is some confusion with regards to the situation referred to in this resolution. Investigation of this resolution has indicated that at no time was any commitment made by Auckland Transport to modify these streets.

The situation can be summarised as follows: during the discussions about mitigation for New Zealand Transport Agency’s work in the Waterview community, traffic calming was requested in Waterbank Road.

Auckland Transport investigated the area during planning and concluded that because there was lots of existing traffic calming already in place (designed to reduce speeds around Waterview Primary) including five speed tables on Herdman Road that slow traffic entering Waterbank Road additional traffic calming was not a priority.

The map below demonstrates that the only entries on to Waterbank Road are from Herdman Street which has a number of speed tables in place.

Auckland Transport did develop a design for modifications that could be made to the intersection of Herdman Street and Waterbank Road and for traffic calming in Waterbank Road. The reason why this proposal did not progress, from a design on paper, to works ‘on the ground’ was that the generally low speed in the area and existing traffic calming in Herdman Street meant this proposal did not warrant a high priority and is unlikely to be delivered in the immediate future.

The previous Auckland Transport Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport’s engineer responsible for coordination with the Waterview project and Auckland Council’s project manager have all been asked about these discussions and all of them agree that at no time did Auckland Transport make any commitment to construct traffic calming in Waterbank Road or modify the intersection as proposed in the planning exercise.

The matter continues to be escalated and Auckland Transport in the last month has re-assessed the area for traffic calming. This assessment confirmed the original prioritisation. Recorded average speeds in Waterbank Road are in the low 30 kmph range making this a relatively low speed environment and therefore not a high priority for traffic calming. Generally areas prioritised for traffic calming interventions are recording average speeds around 50 – 60kmph.

In conclusion and to clear up any confusion about this subject this area has been investigated twice, the studies demonstrate it is a low speed environment and therefore no commitment has been made by Auckland Transport to install traffic calming in Waterbank Road. Based on the investigations it is also highly unlikely that this proposal is ever likely to be supported by Auckland Transport because the existing speed tables and demonstrated low speeds in the area do not warrant traffic calming.

6. Resolution number AE/2015/19

a) That the Albert Eden Local Board supports the overall objectives of the project to review signage.

Auckland Transport notes the Albert Eden Local Board’s support and thanks the members for both this and their patience.

b) That the Albert Eden Local Board notes with concern the long timelines presented for resolution of these signage issues and requests every effort to accelerate the relevant project’s activities be undertaken.

Auckland Transport notes the Albert Eden Local Board’s concern and assures the members that all possible steps will be taken to complete this project as quickly as possible.

c) That the Albert Eden Local Board requests Auckland Transport to replace these signs as quickly as possible after the graphical components and construction materials have been determined.

Auckland Transport notes the Albert Eden Local Board’s concern, thanks the members for their patience and will replace the signage in test areas as quickly as possible after the trial is complete.

d) That the Albert Eden Local Board does not support Auckland’s Transport’s view that these current signs are not seen as representing a safety issue.

Auckland Transport notes the Albert Eden Local Board’s concerns.

e) That the Albert Eden Local Board notes its disappointment in not being briefed on this project prior to the installation of these specific signs.

Auckland Transport notes the Albert Eden Local Board’s concerns and regrets that all Local Boards including the Albert Eden Local Board were not informed as early as they should have been.

Auckland Transport has conducted specific briefings with the Albert-Eden Local Board’s Transport Portfolio Leaders. On 29 April 2015 there will be another opportunity to discuss the project when the team will workshop the project with the Local Board.

7. Resolution number AE/2015/22

f) That the Albert Eden Local Board requests Auckland Transport officers at their earliest convenience to investigate the Eden Terrace area around and including Brentwood Avenue, for a Residents’ Parking Scheme, noting the board have received requests regarding this from some local residents.

Auckland Transport has investigated the Eden Terrace area including Brentwood Ave and is currently working to establish parking restrictions in the area to prevent the area being ‘parked out’ by commuters. The aim is to introduce a series of P120 zones that will ensure that there is better access to parking for visitors.

g) That the Albert Eden Local Board requests Auckland Transport to prioritize the implementation of a residents parking scheme in Eden Terrace focused on Brentwood Avenue and streets in close proximity.

The new Parking Strategy is currently being reviewed by the Auckland Transport Board. The area around Eden Terrace has already been identified as an area of extreme parking congestion and is one of the priority areas for the development of a residential parking scheme.

h) That the Albert Eden Local Board requests Auckland Transport officers to progress an investigation towards a potential cycle way along St Lukes Road, Balmoral Road and Greenlane Road East.

Auckland Transport completed a Corridor Management Plan for this stretch of road last year (2014). The Corridor Management Plan indicated a long-term intention to improve cycling facilities along this route. In the immediate future there are no plans for works on this particular stretch of road because:

· Work is currently focused on the area covered by the Central Government’s Urban Cycling Improvement Fund (UCIF). Most of these projects are in the CBD but Albert-Eden has a projects funded by the UCIF that aims to develop a cycle way linking Meola Road, Point Chevalier Road and Westend Road. This project scheduled to start design work late this year or early next year and for delivery between 2016-18; and

· The works at Western Springs and St Lukes effectively preclude work between the motorway and Balmoral Road in the immediate future.

j) That the Albert Eden Local Board requests a review of the phasing of Point Chevalier, Great North Road and Carrington Road intersection to facilitate turning out of Great North Road in to Carrington Road.

This request has been logged the Reference Number is CAS-564306-V6K6R6 and when information is available it will be reported back.

Discussion

Consultation Reporting

8. The Traffic Control Committee has requested a higher level of transparency regarding Local Board input into decision making and has therefore requested that any consultation requiring a response is listed in the relevant Local Board’s monthly report. Attachment B lists consultation information forwarded to the Albert Eden Local Board in the previous month.

Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP)

9. The RLTP contains the combined intentions of Auckland Transport, New Zealand Transport Agency, and Kiwi Rail in terms of forward planning and Auckland Transport has worked closely with these other agencies in the development of this document.

10. Public consultation on the draft RLTP finished at the end of May 2015 and is now complete.

11. The RLTP has been re-drafted taking into account public submissions and is currently being debated by Auckland Council’s Governing Body.

12. The aim is that the second draft of the RLTP will finished by the end of April 2015 ready for public circulation in May 2015.

Light Rail

13. At a briefing on 3 March 2015 about the light rail project senior Auckland Transport officers discussed the project with Members from the Albert-Eden and Puketapapa Local Boards.

14. At this point the proposal is a still a discussion ‘in principle’. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are trying to confirm whether or not Light Rail is supported by the public and if it makes good business sense. Therefore at this time there is no detailed information (i.e. exactly where stations would be located or exactly where tracks will run) available for discussion.

15. Auckland Transport expects that by the end of the RLTP process a confirmed position will be available.

Berm Planting Guidelines

16. At last month’s meeting it was reported that after strong advocacy from Local Board Chairs Auckland Transport committed to development of the a berm planting policy and Auckland Transport has been working on a draft document called ‘Operating Principles for Planting in the Road Berm’.

17. The process is taking longer than expected but the Albert-Eden Local Board will be briefed on progress once the draft is complete.

Corridor Management Plans (CMPs)

18. Auckland Transport’s work developing CMPs continues and the Albert-Eden Local Board has recently had the opportunity to discuss a new CMP for Gillies Ave on 15 April 2015.

19. The teams developing CMPs have received a lot of useful information about the Local Board area and local concerns.

Manukau Road High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes

20. On 18 March 2015 the team tasked with installing HOV lanes to support the development of the ‘New Network’ visited Albert-Eden Local Board and had a long discussion about Auckland Transport’s initial ideas for this stretch of road.

21. The next steps in the discussion are:

· The Albert-Eden Local Board has requested that the team meet with and discuss the proposal with members of the community and meeting is taking place on 29 April 2015 with Greenwoods Corner businesses.

· Following this meeting there will be another discussion with the Local Board.

· Followed by public consultation.

The overall aim is to have a good option able to be delivered from June 2015.

Albert-Eden Local Board Transport Capital Fund

22. The Albert - Eden Local Board has $664,933 per annum of discretionary funding for transport-related capital projects. It may allocate funding for the whole electoral term (i.e. $1,994,799) at any stage during its term.

23. The uncommitted $ 119,016 from the previous electoral term may also be rolled over on this occasion, giving the Albert - Eden Local Board a total pool of approximately $2,113,815 available in this electoral term to spend on transport projects.

24. This money can be used for projects identified by the Local Board, the principal constraints being that the project:

· Will not compromise transport safety;

· Is transport-related;

· Does not compromise the efficiency of the road network.

25. So far, in this electoral term, the Albert-Eden Local Board has requested a number of projects that are listed in Attachment A with information about their status and progress.

26. In the last month we can report the following new information:

· Auckland Transport has followed up on a couple of outstanding issues related to Local Board projects:

- At the last meeting the process mistake regarding building pedestrian refuges in Milton and Manukau Roads was resolved and the team is now developing ‘Final Cost Estimates’

- A crossing in St Albans Ave that was supposed to be delivered as part of the Balmoral LATM project has been re-activated

- The engineer responsible for the Morningside Drive Pedestrian Refuges Project has called the Member Easte (the Transport Portfolio Leader responsible) to discuss why two of the refuges were not delivered. A further meeting is currently being planned.

· Cadman Road is ready to be delivered but the estimated cost is higher than originally reported. Instead of $ 14,000 the project is now expected to cost $ 18,500. The Albert-Eden Local Board will need to note this variation and authorize release of the extra $ 4,500 if they wish to deliver this project.

· Last month Auckland Transport provided options and ‘Rough Orders of Cost’ for improving pedestrian safety in St Andrews road. The details are included in Attachment B and a resolution is requested from the Albert-Eden Local Board stating the Board’s intent.

· Planning the Newnham Lane project has started. The project team has the details from Auckland Council’s SLIPs Team and has started developing an ROC.

Issues Register

Description

AT Response

Parking in Epsom in vicinity of Queen Mary Avenue

Concerns have been raised about a lack of retail parking for the cinema and shops on Manukau Road, Queen Mary Avenue and in surrounding areas.

A simple solution to the problem is not readily apparent but the Auckland Transport Parking Team is working closely with the Board’s Transport Representative to try and develop a solution.

This issue is a long-term problem and rather than continue report against it monthly it may be simpler to remove the matter from the Issues Register.

Mountain Road Traffic Issues

Residents have raised concerns about the amount and behaviour of traffic on Mountain Road during school morning and afternoon peaks.

Of particular concern was the difficulty for traffic to negotiate the intersections of Mountain Road and:

· Glenfell / Almorah Roads; and

· Gilgit Road.

Considerable work is still being done and initial engineering design has started.

Concepts are not yet ready to be circulated publically but will start to be in the first half of 2015.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Summary of Albert Eden Local Board Transport Capital Fund Projects	147
b View	Summary of Consultation Information Sent to the Albert Eden Local Board in April 2015	155
c View	St Andrews Road Pedestrian crossing: Options	157

Signatories

Authors

Ben Stallworthy - Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Albert-Eden Local Board

06 May 2015

Auckland Transport Quarterly Update to Local Boards

File No.: CP2015/07372

Executive Summary

1. The purpose of this report is to inform local boards about progress on activities undertaken by Auckland Transport (AT) in the three months January – March 2015 and planned activities anticipated to be undertaken in the next three months.

2. Attachments include:

A – Auckland Transport activities

B – Travelwise Schools activities

C – Decisions of the Traffic Control Committee

D – Report against local board advocacy issues

E – Report on the status of the local board’s projects under the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF).

Recommendation/s

That the Albert-Eden Local Board:

a) receives the Auckland Transport Quarterly Update to Local Boards report.

Comments

Significant activities during the period under review

Investment and Development

3. SMART (formerly SWAMMCP)

Investigation into protecting a rail (rapid transit) corridor from Onehunga to the Auckland airport then connecting back to the main trunk line at Puhinui forming a rail loop. NZTA and AT have completed the design work on the Kirkbride Interchange, which is now future proofed for rail. Also the remaining SH20A corridor has been re-assessed for rail, taking into account the improvements that NZTA is proposing. Work is also continuing on updating the business case for the project.

PT Development

4. Otahuhu Bus Rail Interchange

Detailed design completion is expected in April/May 2015. Site pre-loading and rail platform enabling works are now underway. The signal box will be lifted off the rail platform during Queens Birthday Block of Line. Main works are due to commence in July 2015 and scheduled for completion in March 2016 (subject to funding availability). Go-live date for Interchange depends on the South Public Transport Operating Model Network roll-out; currently scheduled for May 2016.

5. Half Moon Bay Ferry Upgrade

The pontoon and gangway contract has been awarded for completion of fabrication by the end of June 2015. Design of the wharf is on-going in readiness for consent submission to council mid-May 2015.

6. City Rail Link

Enabling Works Package: Phase 1 Early Contractor I involvement design service contracts 1 and 2 awarded. Construction is scheduled to commence early 2016. Main Works: Construction is subject to funding availability in the new LTP yet to be adopted by Auckland Council (assumed to be 2018).

7. EMU Procurement

AT currently has a total of 51 three-car units in Auckland with 42 of these issued with provisional acceptance. Five six-car services are operating during Manukau peak times. Non-peak services have been operating between Britomart and Papakura and driver conversion trains are running out to Swanson on a regular basis.

PT Operations

8. Public Transport overall

There has been another big jump in the numbers using public transport in Auckland. Annual patronage now exceeds 78 million boardings, an increase of 10%. In March, there were 8.4 million boardings, a jump of more than 1 million on March 2014.

9. Rail Improvements

The big performer was rail which reached 13.4 million passenger trips for the year, an annual increase of 21%. March saw a monthly record high of 1.56 million train trips, an increase of 29% on March last year. The growth is put down to the enhanced travel experience and additional capacity provided by the new electric trains and greater service frequency introduced over recent years.

Auckland Transport is aiming to have a full electric network by the end of July, except for the link between Papakura and Pukekohe which will continue to use diesel trains. These will be refurbished over time to provide an enhanced experience. The electric trains will provide improved travel experience and more capacity on the Southern and Western Lines.

10. Bus Improvements

March was also a record-breaking month on the Northern Express, with patronage up almost 17% on the same month last year. The 12 month total reached 2.8 million. It was also a record for other bus services as patronage rose 8% to 56.6 million. Ferry numbers for the year totalled 5.4 million trips, up 5% on an annual basis.

Growth on bus services is attributed to increased services and frequency, improving travel times from new bus priority lanes and a significant improvement in service punctuality being achieved by bus operators through new timetables. Further service level increases and punctuality improvements are planned for later this year along with the introduction of double decker buses on a number of routes. New network designs will also be introduced from later this year.

Road Design and Development

11. Te Atatu Road Improvements

Road Corridor Improvement project on Te Atatu Rd from School Road/Edmonton Road intersection to SH16. Building consents have now been obtained. Three contractors been short-listed to submit a tender for the physical works. Construction is targeted to start in July 2015 with a view towards completion around January 2017.

12. Albany Highway

The Albany Highway North Upgrade is a 4km road widening of Albany Highway between Schnapper Rock Road and Albany Expressway. Construction is approximately 25% complete. The majority of the site is operating with a 30 km/hr speed limit, which results in a 2-3 minute delay to vehicles. Disruption to neighbouring land owners due to construction is well managed, with some positive feedback received regarding the construction team's approach to resolving issues.

13. Lincoln Road Improvements

The project involves widening Lincoln Road between Te Pai Place and Motorway Interchange to accommodate additional transit/bus lanes on both sides. A stakeholders workshop was conducted in March to discuss the best identified options for storm water treatment sites. At the same time a meeting was arranged with Parks and Planning to come-up with best layout for the road access for the properties between Daytona Reserve and Lincoln Road.

14. Mill Road Improvements

The Redoubt Road - Mill Road corridor provides an arterial road connection east of State High 1 between Manukau, Papakura and Drury and includes Murphys Road from Redoubt Road to Flatbush School Road. The Notice of Requirement has been notified for the northern section of this project and submissions close in May 2015. AT held public open days in mid-April.

15. Cycle Initiatives

An information day has been held to share design concepts for the second stage of the Beach Road walking and cycling project. Stage two will deliver a streetscape upgrade and continue the cycleway along Beach Road from the intersection with Mahuhu Crescent through to Britomart Place. Construction is expected to begin in February and be completed in July.

Services

16. Road Safety

A regional alcohol #Drunksense #Straightsense campaign was delivered. The programme targeted males aged 18-25 years. To reach the target audience, a combination of cinema advertisements, Facebook and social media activities were undertaken. Localised interventions including promotions of key messages was undertaken at Auckland Council Movies in the Park, NRL Auckland Nines, Kumeu A&P Show and Pasifika.

AT delivered a Red Light Running regional campaign supporting the installation of new red light cameras and locations in partnership with enforcement support by NZ Police.

17. Safer Communities and Schools Travelwise programme

Over 120 students from 25 secondary schools attended the regional Travelwise Secondary Schools Summit on 18 March 2015. The objective of this event was to introduce Travelwise leaders to the resources and skills they need to ‘get going’ on developing a successful Travelwise campaign for their school community. Students participated in an AT Metro public transport challenge, and worked in teams to develop and present a road safety campaign that they would deliver in their school.

In March 2015, 414 students and 77 Travelwise lead teachers attended four area-based Travelwise Primary student workshops. The workshops were an opportunity for students and teachers to share ideas and be motivated to further develop road safety activities and initiatives in their schools.

Since 1 July 2014, 79 new Walking School Buses have been established, exceeding the KPI by 43 new Walking School Buses.

The following schools received safety infrastructure over the last quarter to support the schools’ travel plan initiatives:

· Mayfield School

· Koru School

· Favona School

· Otahuhu Intermediate

· Otahuhu Primary School

· St. Josephs School

· Pakuranga College

18. Travel Demand

Auckland Council and AT have jointly developed a business action plan for the Auckland Council Travel Plan. The travel plan was approved for implementation by the Executive team at the end of January. The travel plan is currently in the process of being approved by PSA delegates before it goes out for staff consultation. Auckland Council also celebrated ‘Go By Bike Day’ with Cycle Information Sessions at the main centres. The sessions included route planning advice for cyclists, safety tips and distribution of resources.

19. Walk 2 Work Day

National ‘Walk2Work Day’ was held on Wednesday 11 March. AT supported the day with a regional radio campaign, a dedicated web page and an online photo competition. On the day, AT organised the ZM Black Thunder radio station vehicles to engage with people walking near Victoria Park and on Karangahape Road. AT also worked with Living Streets Aotearoa to engage with people walking to work or to public transport at Devonport Wharf, and the Sunnynook and Smales Farm bus stations.

Road Corridor Delivery

20. Overview

The Road Corridor Group is tasked with the responsibility for a wide range of activities within the Road Corridor. These include but are not limited to:

· The Delivery of roading and streetlight maintenance and renewal programmes

· Managing the access, co-ordination and traffic management impacts of activities taking place within the road corridor

· Promote design innovation and efficiency around how work is carried out on the network

· The development of long term asset management plans and modelling which support the decision making process around the management of our roading assets.

21. January – March Quarter key highlights

The Road Corridor Delivery Team have a Year to date (YTD) target to deliver 580.9 km of resurfacing or pavement and footpath renewals. Sealed roads require periodic resurfacing to keep the sealed surface waterproof with good skid resistance. Roads are resurfaced using either an asphalt or chipseal coating. Pavement rehabilitation is undertaken when the road pavement reaches the end of its service life and is either too rough, or expensive, to maintain. New pavements are designed with a life expectancy of 25 years.

As outlined in figure 1, to date AT has delivered 489.5km or 85% of the YTD programme and is on track to complete the full programme by the end of the financial year in June.

Figure 1: Actual vs planned lengths (km) for February YTD

Renewal Activity	Full Year Target (km)	Completed length at end of March (km)	Completion v. Full Year Target (%)
Pavements	36.4	24.3	67
Resurfacing	428.2	380.6	89
Footpaths	116.4	84.6	73
Total	580.9	489.5	85

22. The renewal forward work programme for 2015/2016 will be published at the end of April. This will identify the planned renewal works for roads, footpaths, structures and public transport.

23. The streetlight tender process for the procurement of five contracts is well underway. These contracts will commence on 1 July 2015 and coincide with a programme to replace 40,000 x 70w luminaires currently on the network with Light Emitting Diodes. This is a five-year renewal programme aimed initially at residential streets. A priority matrix will be developed for other key areas such as town centres. The use of LEDs not only reduces electricity consumption by 50-60% but also plays a part in producing a clearer white light which helps in the overall effort to improve road safety.

24. To date the management of the 6,885km footpath network has been subjected to the policies of the legacy councils and, as a result, has created inconsistencies across the region in standards and practice. In response a regional footpath renewal strategy is now being developed. The aim is to achieve a consistent and coherent approach to the renewal and maintenance of AT’s footpath assets. The approach will also align with level of service requirements whilst taking into account key factors such as affordability and value for money for the ratepayers of Auckland.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Schedule of activities undertaken for the third quarter (2014/15) ending 31 March 2015	165
b View	Travelwise Schools activities broken down by local board	185
c View	Traffic Control Committee Decisions broken down by local board	187
d View	Local Board Advocacy Report	189
e View	Local Board Transport Capital Fund Report	191

Signatories

Authors

Various Auckland Transport authors

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

[1] Summer activities were described within the online survey as ‘swimming, sunbathing, and playing with the sand’.

[2] Daylight savings starts last Sunday in September.

[3] Daylight savings finishes on the first Sunday in April.

[4] NZ Gazette Notice No. 62, 27 May 2004 pg 1463

[5] There are 17 existing “dog exercise areas”, but three are administered by the maunga authority and are outside the scope of this review and so have not been included in the proposal.

Chairperson	Peter Haynes
Deputy Chairperson	Glenda Fryer
Members	Helga Arlington
	Lee Corrick
	Graeme Easte
	Rachel Langton
	Margi Watson
	Tim Woolfield

Author	Michael Mendoza - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards